Staged force feedback transitioning between control states
A surgical system is provided comprising: an input device; and a controller for receiving control inputs from the input device and for providing haptic feedback at the input device, the controller configured to apply a staged transition from a first haptic feedback profile at the input device to a second haptic feedback profile at the input device.
This application is a divisional of U.S. application Ser. No. 17/735,664, filed on May 3, 2022, which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 16/069,800, now U.S. Pat. No. 11,357,587, filed on Jul. 12, 2018, which is a U.S. National Stage Filing under 35 U.S.C 371 from International Application No. PCT/US2017/013237, filed on Jan. 12, 2017, and published as WO 2017/123769 A1 on Jul. 20, 2017, which claims the benefit of priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/277,820, filed on Jan. 12, 2016, each of which is hereby incorporated by reference herein in its entirety.
FIELDThe present invention is directed towards systems and methods for providing haptic feedback to the operator of a surgical system, and more particularly to maintaining an intuitive haptic profile for the user when the control state of the system changes.
BACKGROUNDTele-operated surgical systems are often intended to enhance surgeon precision and/or reduce patient trauma during a medical procedure. In such systems, a surgeon interacts with input devices (sometimes referred to as “masters” or “master controllers”) to control surgical instruments that are actuated by drive mechanisms such as motors. Because the surgeon is not directly manipulating the surgical instruments, it can sometimes be beneficial to provide haptic feedback at the input devices that indicates or replicates the forces felt at the surgical instruments. To provide a good user experience, the surgeon would ideally experience a seamless haptic experience through system state and configuration changes. However, this can be difficult to accomplish, particularly when a given input device is used in multiple different control states. For example, a single input device may be used to control multiple different instruments (requiring switching control between those different instruments), may be used to control an overall positioning of the surgical system (e.g., changing the viewpoint of an endoscope looking at the anatomical region of interest), may be used to change settings of the surgical system, and/or may be simply be disassociated from any control effects.
Simply activating/deactivating/changing haptic feedback in response to such control state changes can create jerky and unintuitive interactions. If a force is being applied to a user in one state and will not be applied to the user in the next state, immediately changing the force from full force on to no force is disconcerting to the user. For example, when transitioning from controlling an instrument with haptic feedback to controlling an instrument without haptic feedback (e.g., the endoscope) or otherwise entering a control state without haptic feedback (or even a different haptic feedback), such as instrument changes (i.e., removal of an instrument from a manipulator), exit from following (i.e., disabling the control of the instrument by the input device), or arm swap (i.e., changing the surgical instrument/arm/manipulator under control by the input device), an immediate loss of haptic feedback would feel like an unexpected loss of resistance to the user.
Users find it similarly disconcerting if force feedback is immediately enabled when a user transitions from an instrument that is rendering no (or low) force to an instrument with a (high) force. This can happen, for example, when we transition from camera control back to an instrument with force feedback. This also occurs any time a user initially takes control of an instrument (e.g. transitioning first going into following with an instrument).
Another problem arises when the user is changing control states to an intermediate state in which they remain associated with a particular instrument (e.g. clutching, head-in UI, etc.) but control is not being applied. Turning the force feedback off during the intermediate state and back on again when returning to directly controlling the instrument is not ideal for users. Often these intermediate control states are short in duration, so turning on/off the force quickly can be problematic.
Note that the force feedback being presented to the user may be the sum of the feedback from a sensor, from an algorithm, from a user interface cue, collision detection, etc.
SUMMARYTo mitigate the discomfort of abrupt force transitions when changing control states, a staged transition can be performed from the original force being displayed at the input device (and hence, to the user) to a level appropriate for the new control state.
In some embodiments, the haptic feedback force vector transitions (over some non-zero time, in direction and/or magnitude) from force A to force B. Force A magnitude can be greater than or less than force B (or in some embodiments equivalent, where the transition is one of direction only). The profile of the staged transition from the magnitudes of force A to force B can be any profile that takes place over time, including linear or curvilinear transitions, and can include discontinuities (e.g., steps) as part of the transition.
In some embodiments, for the control state changes that involve going into an intermediate mode where the user remains associated with a particular instrument, the force feedback can remain at the level it was last at when the user stopping directly controlling the instrument. For example, if the control state transitions from instrument control (following) to non-instrument control (exit following), the haptic feedback at the associated input device can be maintained at its current level for at least some period of time. In various embodiments, after such stable period, a staged transition to a reduced force or no-force state could subsequently be applied.
It is to be understood that both the foregoing general description and the following detailed description are exemplary and explanatory in nature and are intended to provide an understanding of the present disclosure without limiting the scope of the present disclosure. In that regard, additional aspects, features, and advantages of the present disclosure will be apparent to one skilled in the art from the following detailed description.
Aspects of the present disclosure are best understood from the following detailed description when read with the accompanying figures. It is emphasized that, in accordance with the standard practice in the industry, various features are not drawn to scale. In fact, the dimensions of the various features may be arbitrarily increased or reduced for clarity of discussion. In addition, the present disclosure may repeat reference numerals and/or letters in the various examples. This repetition is for the purpose of simplicity and clarity and does not in itself dictate a relationship between the various embodiments and/or configurations discussed.
In the following detailed description of the aspects of the invention, numerous specific details are set forth in order to provide a thorough understanding of the disclosed embodiments. However, it will be obvious to one skilled in the art that the embodiments of this disclosure may be practiced without these specific details. In other instances well known methods, procedures, components, and circuits have not been described in detail so as not to unnecessarily obscure aspects of the embodiments of the invention. And, to avoid needless descriptive repetition, one or more components or actions described in accordance with one illustrative embodiment can be used or omitted as applicable from other illustrative embodiments.
By providing a staged transition between force feedback profiles when the control state of a surgical system changes, an intuitive haptic experience can be maintained for the user of the surgical system.
Then in a CHANGE CONTROL STATE step 120, a control state change in the surgical system occurs (typically in response to user command/action, but in other examples in response to external commands such as system timer or warning, or third-party action/command), such that inputs at the input device are no longer providing the same effect at the surgical instrument. For example, in a surgical system that includes both a surgical instrument and a camera (e.g., endoscope), there can be instances where the control state changes from one in which the input device is controlling the surgical instrument, to a “camera control mode” where the input device is controlling the viewpoint of the camera/field of view of the surgical site. If the input device is providing haptic feedback to the user when such a control state change occurs, then immediately removing the haptic feedback in response to the change would result in an abrupt loss of force feedback at the input device, which could be disconcerting and/or disorienting to the user.
Therefore, in an APPLY STAGED HAPTIC FEEDBACK TRANSITION step 130, a staged transition is performed from the original haptic feedback profile to the desired haptic feedback profile for the new control state. In other words, the transition from the original haptic feedback profile to the desired haptic feedback profile includes at least one intermediate stage that reduces the sudden change in haptic feedback that would occur from an immediate switch between the old and new haptic profiles corresponding to the switch between control states.
Often, this transition from the original haptic feedback profile to the desired (new) haptic feedback profile will involve an adjustment to the force feedback vector expressed at the input device.
Note that in some embodiments, a “phantom” haptic feedback can be maintained when changing between a control state having haptic feedback and a control state that normally would not generate haptic feedback.
As described above with respect to
Then, in a MAINTAIN HAPTIC FEEDBACK step 125, the haptic feedback profile is left unchanged even as the control state of the system changes. Such haptic feedback consistency can sometimes provide a more intuitive experience for the user, compared to changing or eliminating feedback altogether. For example, changing from an instrument control state (having haptic feedback) to a control state in which the input device is used to change system parameters (e.g., selecting menu options) and therefore does not have any logical haptic feedback relationship to the surgical instrument forces, it can be beneficial to simply maintain the feedback profile from the instrument control state even during the system settings control state, so that when the control state changes back to the instrument control state, the user is not surprised by a sudden appearance of force feedback at the input device. Thus, even though the haptic feedback profile in the new state is technically inconsistent with the control actions performed at the input device for the new state, that haptic inconsistency can actually provide a more consistent user experience.
Note that in some embodiments, step 125 can include overlaying or adding additional haptic feedback associated with the new control state to the original haptic feedback profile. For in the system settings example described above, certain haptic feedback effects could be associated with the system settings control state, such as haptic “clicks” or “bumps” when settings are changed or selected. In some embodiments, such haptic effects could be provided along with the original force feedback from the previous control state.
Note further that in some embodiments, the haptic feedback maintenance of step 125 can be followed by an APPLY STAGED HAPTIC FEEDBACK TRANSITION step 130, as described above with respect to
For exemplary purposes,
Note that this description of control state A is for exemplary purposes only, as this initial control state A could be any state of surgical system 300. For example, while the haptic feedback profile force FA is described as being derived from a force FS sensed at end effector 311 of instrument 310 for exemplary purposes, in various other embodiments, force FS could be sensed at any location for which corresponding haptic feedback at input device 330 would be beneficial, such as interactions at shaft 312 or any other element of manipulation structure 313 (e.g., arm pressure against structures or staff).
In various other embodiments, force FS can be defined according to non-physical parameters, such as the synthetic interactive elements described above. For example, in some embodiments, surgical system 300 can include an optional display 350 (e.g., a monitor(s), a head-in viewer(s), projections, video glasses/helmet(s), and/or any other graphical presentation element). In various embodiments, display 350 can present a virtual or synthetic element 361 that can be interacted with via input device 330. In some embodiments, synthetic element 361 can be used as a supplemental interface for interacting with a physical component of surgical system 300. For example, as shown in
In various other embodiments, surgical system 300 may provide guidance to the user with respect to movement of instrument 310 and/or input device 330. For example, a desired motion of instrument 310 (e.g., a targeted or safe dissection path, a desired retraction movement, or any other beneficial articulation) could optionally be defined as a trajectory 362. By generating a haptic feedback profile based on model forces FS2 associated with maintaining the position of instrument 310 along trajectory 362 (e.g., inwardly directed forces produced upon deviations from trajectory 362), controller 320 can then attempt to provide an appropriate haptic feedback profile force FA at input device 330.
Then, in an exemplary control state change to a new control state B depicted in
In other embodiments, another exemplary control state change from control state A in
As noted above, in some embodiments the retained haptic force FA be overlaid with additional haptic feedback associated with the new control state, such as haptic “clicks” or “bumps” when settings are changed or selected. As further noted above, the maintained haptic feedback can be followed by a subsequent staged transition to a new haptic feedback profile.
While certain exemplary embodiments of the invention have been described and shown in the accompanying drawings, it is to be understood that such embodiments are merely illustrative of and not restrictive on the broad invention, and that the embodiments of the invention not be limited to the specific constructions and arrangements shown and described, since various other modifications may occur to those ordinarily skilled in the art.
Claims
1. A method comprising:
- outputting, by a controller during a first control state of a surgical system and at an input device of the surgical system, haptic feedback associated with a first non-zero haptic force feedback profile;
- detecting, by the controller, a transition from the first control state to a second control state of the surgical system; and
- implementing, by the controller, a phantom non-zero haptic force feedback profile to maintain the first haptic feedback during the second control state.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein:
- the phantom non-zero haptic force feedback profile is inconsistent with a user control action performed at the input device in the second control state.
3. The method of claim 2, further comprising:
- overlaying at least one haptic effect onto the first non-zero haptic force feedback profile.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
- restoring the first non-zero haptic force feedback profile at the input device on a condition in which the surgical system transitions from the second control state to the first control state.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
- controlling a surgical instrument according to user input received at the input device while the surgical system is in the first control state;
- receiving sensed force data from the surgical instrument during the controlling; and
- generating the first non-zero haptic force feedback profile based on the sensed force data.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein:
- the first non-zero haptic force feedback profile is based on a synthetic interactive element generated by the controller.
7. A surgical system comprising:
- an input device; and
- a controller operably coupled to the input device;
- wherein the controller is configured to perform a plurality of operations including: outputting, during a first control state of the surgical system and at the input device, haptic feedback associated with a first non-zero haptic force feedback profile; detecting a transition from the first control state to a second control state of the surgical system; and implementing a phantom non-zero haptic force feedback profile to maintain the first haptic feedback during the second control state.
8. The surgical system of claim 7, wherein:
- the phantom haptic feedback profile is inconsistent with a control action at the input device associated with the second control state.
9. The surgical system of claim 8, wherein:
- the plurality of operations includes overlaying at least one haptic effect onto the first non-zero haptic force feedback profile.
10. The surgical system of claim 7, wherein:
- the plurality of operations includes restoring the first non-zero haptic force feedback profile at the input device on a condition in which the surgical system transitions from the second control state to the first control state.
11. The surgical system of claim 7, wherein:
- the plurality of operations includes: controlling a surgical instrument according to input associated with the input device while the surgical system in the first control state, receiving sensed force data from the surgical instrument during the controlling, and generating the first non-zero haptic force feedback profile based on the sensed force data.
12. The surgical system of claim 7, wherein:
- the first non-zero haptic force feedback profile is based on a synthetic interactive element generated by the controller.
| 4160508 | July 10, 1979 | Frosch et al. |
| 4604016 | August 5, 1986 | Joyce |
| 5116180 | May 26, 1992 | Fung et al. |
| 5696837 | December 9, 1997 | Green |
| 5710870 | January 20, 1998 | Ohm et al. |
| 5767648 | June 16, 1998 | Morel et al. |
| 6024576 | February 15, 2000 | Bevirt et al. |
| 6102850 | August 15, 2000 | Wang et al. |
| 6377011 | April 23, 2002 | Ben-Ur |
| 6459926 | October 1, 2002 | Nowlin et al. |
| 6594552 | July 15, 2003 | Nowlin et al. |
| 6639581 | October 28, 2003 | Moore et al. |
| 6723106 | April 20, 2004 | Charles et al. |
| 6994703 | February 7, 2006 | Wang et al. |
| 7155315 | December 26, 2006 | Niemeyer et al. |
| 7248944 | July 24, 2007 | Green |
| 7373219 | May 13, 2008 | Nowlin et al. |
| 7843158 | November 30, 2010 | Prisco |
| 7963288 | June 21, 2011 | Rosenberg et al. |
| 8041459 | October 18, 2011 | Sutherland et al. |
| 8170717 | May 1, 2012 | Sutherland et al. |
| 8343171 | January 1, 2013 | Farritor et al. |
| 8396598 | March 12, 2013 | Sutherland et al. |
| 8644988 | February 4, 2014 | Prisco et al. |
| 9002518 | April 7, 2015 | Manzo et al. |
| 9014856 | April 21, 2015 | Manzo et al. |
| 9050120 | June 9, 2015 | Swarup et al. |
| 9198714 | December 1, 2015 | Worrell et al. |
| 9220567 | December 29, 2015 | Sutherland et al. |
| 9339343 | May 17, 2016 | Swarup et al. |
| 9492927 | November 15, 2016 | Diolaiti et al. |
| 9649174 | May 16, 2017 | Swarup et al. |
| 11357587 | June 14, 2022 | Verner |
| 11701194 | July 18, 2023 | Verner |
| 20010018591 | August 30, 2001 | Brock et al. |
| 20030004610 | January 2, 2003 | Niemeyer et al. |
| 20030060927 | March 27, 2003 | Gerbi et al. |
| 20040039485 | February 26, 2004 | Niemeyer et al. |
| 20040106916 | June 3, 2004 | Quaid et al. |
| 20040243147 | December 2, 2004 | Lipow |
| 20050024331 | February 3, 2005 | Berkley et al. |
| 20050219206 | October 6, 2005 | Schena et al. |
| 20060149418 | July 6, 2006 | Anvari |
| 20060207978 | September 21, 2006 | Rizun et al. |
| 20070103437 | May 10, 2007 | Rosenberg |
| 20070142968 | June 21, 2007 | Prisco et al. |
| 20070239028 | October 11, 2007 | Houser et al. |
| 20080150891 | June 26, 2008 | Berkley et al. |
| 20090062813 | March 5, 2009 | Prisco et al. |
| 20090157059 | June 18, 2009 | Allen |
| 20090195538 | August 6, 2009 | Ryu et al. |
| 20090228145 | September 10, 2009 | Hodgson et al. |
| 20100041991 | February 18, 2010 | Roundhill |
| 20100073150 | March 25, 2010 | Olson et al. |
| 20100179423 | July 15, 2010 | Ramstein et al. |
| 20100256558 | October 7, 2010 | Olson et al. |
| 20100274087 | October 28, 2010 | Diolaiti et al. |
| 20110071543 | March 24, 2011 | Prisco et al. |
| 20110082468 | April 7, 2011 | Hagag |
| 20110118748 | May 19, 2011 | Itkowitz |
| 20110121953 | May 26, 2011 | Grant et al. |
| 20110295247 | December 1, 2011 | Schlesinger et al. |
| 20110295268 | December 1, 2011 | Roelle et al. |
| 20120116391 | May 10, 2012 | Houser et al. |
| 20120138658 | June 7, 2012 | Ullrich et al. |
| 20120143182 | June 7, 2012 | Ullrich et al. |
| 20120265051 | October 18, 2012 | Fischer et al. |
| 20130023917 | January 24, 2013 | Cruz Hernandez et al. |
| 20130053648 | February 28, 2013 | Abovitz et al. |
| 20130103050 | April 25, 2013 | Richmond et al. |
| 20130131867 | May 23, 2013 | Olds et al. |
| 20130169412 | July 4, 2013 | Roth |
| 20130172906 | July 4, 2013 | Olson et al. |
| 20130211590 | August 15, 2013 | Diolaiti et al. |
| 20130274712 | October 17, 2013 | Schecter |
| 20130289767 | October 31, 2013 | Lim et al. |
| 20130296737 | November 7, 2013 | McMillan et al. |
| 20130321262 | December 5, 2013 | Schecter et al. |
| 20140142582 | May 22, 2014 | Biedermann et al. |
| 20140142592 | May 22, 2014 | Moon |
| 20140276938 | September 18, 2014 | Hsu |
| 20140277017 | September 18, 2014 | Leimbach |
| 20140330073 | November 6, 2014 | Ko et al. |
| 20150073340 | March 12, 2015 | Pacheco et al. |
| 20150119637 | April 30, 2015 | Alvarez et al. |
| 20150130599 | May 14, 2015 | Berkley et al. |
| 20150360365 | December 17, 2015 | Fudaba et al. |
| 20190201137 | July 4, 2019 | Shelton, IV et al. |
| 20200352665 | November 12, 2020 | Itotani et al. |
| 20210038334 | February 11, 2021 | Hsu et al. |
| 20210093409 | April 1, 2021 | Overmyer et al. |
| 20220331039 | October 20, 2022 | Verner et al. |
| 20240307139 | September 19, 2024 | Kadokura |
| 20240398497 | December 5, 2024 | Verner et al. |
| 102046235 | May 2011 | CN |
| 103203755 | July 2013 | CN |
| 2023844 | February 2009 | EP |
| 2764842 | August 2014 | EP |
| 3834765 | July 2024 | EP |
| 2009187550 | August 2009 | JP |
| 2010524548 | July 2010 | JP |
| 2011519286 | July 2011 | JP |
| 20140065895 | May 2014 | KR |
| 20150007020 | January 2015 | KR |
| WO-2005039835 | May 2005 | WO |
| WO-2005074435 | August 2005 | WO |
| WO-2013059643 | April 2013 | WO |
| WO-2013169303 | November 2013 | WO |
| WO-2015148293 | October 2015 | WO |
| WO-2016201303 | December 2016 | WO |
| WO-2017123796 | July 2017 | WO |
| WO-2017146890 | August 2017 | WO |
| WO-2021211225 | October 2021 | WO |
| WO-2022193889 | September 2022 | WO |
| WO-2023076468 | May 2023 | WO |
| WO-2023180891 | September 2023 | WO |
- Office Action for JP Application No. JP2023005621, mailed Oct. 15, 2024, 10 pages.
- Office Action for KR Application No. 10-2018-7019556, mailed Aug. 22, 2023, 09 pages.
- Office Action for CN Application No. 2022100970110, mailed Nov. 22, 2023, 12 pages.
- Extended European Search Report for Application No. EP21153585.1 mailed on May 19, 2021, 11 pages.
- Extended European Search Report for Application No. 17738963.2 mailed on Aug. 13, 2019, 10 pages.
- International Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/US2017/013237, mailed on May 2, 2017, 12 pages.
- Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 17/735,664, mailed Mar. 29, 2023, 8 pages.
- Office Action for JP Application No. 2018-533730, mailed Apr. 12, 2022, 15 pages.
- Office Action for JP Application No. 2018-533730, mailed Oct. 4, 2022, 20 pages.
- Okamura A.M., “Haptic Feedback in Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Surgery,” Current Opinion in Urology, Jun. 24, 2009, National Institute of Health Public Access, vol. 19 (1), 10 pages.
- Vertut, J, and Coiffet, P., “Robot Technology: Teleoperation and Robotics Evolution and Development,” English translation, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Inglewood Cliffs, NJ, USA 1986, vol. 3A, 332 pages.
- Extended European Search Report for Application No. EP24183856.4, mailed on Aug. 5, 2024, 10 pages.
- Garcia J.G., et al., “Force and Acceleration Sensor Fusion for Compliant Robot Motion Control,” Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Apr. 2005, pp. 2709-2714.
- Office Action for CN Application No. 2022100970110, mailed Jun. 27, 2024, 09 pages.
- Office Action for JP Application No. JP2018533730, mailed Feb. 20, 2024, 06 pages.
- Office Action for JP Application No. JP2023005621, mailed Apr. 9, 2024, 24 pages.
- Office Action for KR Application No. KR1020187019556, mailed Feb. 26, 2024, 05 pages.
Type: Grant
Filed: May 31, 2023
Date of Patent: Feb 24, 2026
Patent Publication Number: 20230320802
Assignee: Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc. (Sunnyvale, CA)
Inventors: Lawton N. Verner (Saratoga, CA), Hsien-Hsin Liao (Los Altos, CA)
Primary Examiner: Michael J Lau
Application Number: 18/204,090
International Classification: A61B 34/00 (20160101); A61B 34/30 (20160101); A61B 1/045 (20060101); A61B 17/00 (20060101);